On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That's pretty much a blanko argument for throwing everything into the
> kernel. What's next, throwing your jvm into the kernel because you like
> some kernel helpers?
Please don't give Ingo any funny ideas! :-)
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We've been through this a few times - there is no reason why a tool
> using the KVM ioctls should be considered close to the kernel - all
> other users get away just fine staying out of tree, and that has
> helped to keep the ABI stable.
It's not just about the KVM ABI - it's VESA BIOS data structures,
E820, serial console registers, virtio drivers, kernel utils, and perf
utils.
I know you don't see the benefits of integrated code base but I as a
developer do.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This sounds more like you should create a libkernelutil with useful
> data structures we use in the kernel for userspace programs. I'd love
> to use that for a few projects, btw.
It's certainly a worthwhile project for someone. I'd love to use that too.
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
